[Dinkleberg >:(]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

My argument isn't that Dink does things to blindside the staff, my argument is that the new rule is unnecessary. I won't deny that Dink does blindside the staff with stuff sometimes (this being one of them) but that's not my main point in this thread.

This isn't a new rule, it's simply the removal of an old rule that applied in very few situations and caused a lot of confusion. I try to update things in the changelog when I do them, especially major ones.

[DoYouLiftBro]

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

My argument isn't that Dink does things to blindside the staff, my argument is that the new rule is unnecessary. I won't deny that Dink does blindside the staff with stuff sometimes (this being one of them) but that's not my main point in this thread.

May I ask you why you think this rule change is unnecessary?
(Edit: the way I worded it first came off wrong.)

[Dummy Thicc Noodle Lady]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

My argument isn't that Dink does things to blindside the staff, my argument is that the new rule is unnecessary. I won't deny that Dink does blindside the staff with stuff sometimes (this being one of them) but that's not my main point in this thread.

This isn't a new rule, it's simply the removal of an old rule that applied in very few situations and caused a lot of confusion. I try to update things in the changelog when I do them, especially major ones.

I didn't want to really stick my nose in this but T on T, intentional RDM happens more often than you think. A slap on the wrist for intentional T on T doesn't really give them time to think about stuff like, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be a retarded snowflake and RDM my buddies.". No literal offense, but Dink you just come on to try and fix things, you don't staff. Not everyone knows how to play the game or particularly cares for the rules of the game. You can't expect people to have common sense either.

I'm still going to have to enforce it even though I personally think it is stupid and hopefully Admins will be able get it reverted.

[Dinkleberg >:(]

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

My argument isn't that Dink does things to blindside the staff, my argument is that the new rule is unnecessary. I won't deny that Dink does blindside the staff with stuff sometimes (this being one of them) but that's not my main point in this thread.

This isn't a new rule, it's simply the removal of an old rule that applied in very few situations and caused a lot of confusion. I try to update things in the changelog when I do them, especially major ones.

I didn't want to really stick my nose in this but T on T, intentional RDM happens more often than you think. A slap on the wrist for intentional T on T doesn't really give them time to think about stuff like, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be a retarded snowflake and RDM my buddies.". No literal offense, but Dink you just come on to try and fix things, you don't staff. Not everyone knows how to play the game or particularly cares for the rules of the game. You can't expect people to have common sense either.

I'm still going to have to enforce it even though I personally think it is stupid and hopefully Admins will be able get it reverted.

I agree with you guys and I think that intentional T on T rdm is not okay and probably does happen more than I think. I think it deserves more than a slay, but I don't want to have situations where 2 slays are given out due to the confusion and rule bending this has caused

[Dildo Shwaggins]

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

My argument isn't that Dink does things to blindside the staff, my argument is that the new rule is unnecessary. I won't deny that Dink does blindside the staff with stuff sometimes (this being one of them) but that's not my main point in this thread.

This isn't a new rule, it's simply the removal of an old rule that applied in very few situations and caused a lot of confusion. I try to update things in the changelog when I do them, especially major ones.

I didn't want to really stick my nose in this but T on T, intentional RDM happens more often than you think. A slap on the wrist for intentional T on T doesn't really give them time to think about stuff like, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be a retarded snowflake and RDM my buddies.". No literal offense, but Dink you just come on to try and fix things, you don't staff. Not everyone knows how to play the game or particularly cares for the rules of the game. You can't expect people to have common sense either.

I'm still going to have to enforce it even though I personally think it is stupid and hopefully Admins will be able get it reverted.

I agree with you guys and I think that intentional T on T rdm is not okay and probably does happen more than I think. I think it deserves more than a slay, but I don't want to have situations where 2 slays are given out due to the confusion and rule bending this has caused

I would be inclined to agree with that, but I feel like if people really cared and weren't being trolls in the first place by doing the intentional T on T RDMs I feel like there would be a lot more complains on the forums about the "rule bending" and a lot more abuse reports but we don't get them. Most people who are genuinely new to the game that come on and care about playing ask us things and we try to explain the best we can to those people. When someone comes on and claims to be new and break a few rules they're probably trolls anyways and end up with punishments worse than slays pretty quickly or just leave.

[Foxka]

This just seems like another pointless change that seemingly no one agrees with

---

[quote pid='58854' dateline='1558582805']
I didn't want to really stick my nose in this but T on T, intentional RDM happens more often than you think. A slap on the wrist for intentional T on T doesn't really give them time to think about stuff like, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be a retarded snowflake and RDM my buddies.". No literal offense, but Dink you just come on to try and fix things, you don't staff. Not everyone knows how to play the game or particularly cares for the rules of the game. You can't expect people to have common sense either.

I'm still going to have to enforce it even though I personally think it is stupid and hopefully Admins will be able get it reverted.

I agree with you guys and I think that intentional T on T rdm is not okay and probably does happen more than I think. I think it deserves more than a slay, but I don't want to have situations where 2 slays are given out due to the confusion and rule bending this has caused
[/quote]

You just said it deserves more than a slay but made a rule change that goes against that, why? If the rule was being bent then make it more clear, or better yet have them as seperate rules. I dont think its hard to tell when a t on t rdm is not an accident, and it is fairly easy to tell when people are lying in reports. Just make the rule more concise and keep the original punishments, thank you.

I love ya dink but this seems like a mistake


Edit 2 electric boogaloo: I saw the update to the announcement you made dink, I really appreciate that you reverted the ruling for now until the current systems are modernized. Remember that no one here hates you or is mad at you for attempting to change the server in a way that you think will improve it. We continually appreciate your efforts, we just disagreed with this one.

[cherry (2)]

For now we staff should  just give out warnings from the awarns system with the one slay no matter what the discussion is for now as it’s clearly stated by dinkleberg himself.
Unsure if that’s being more commonly used now but it should be, it’s a good system.

[Nicol Bolas]

For now we staff should  just give out warnings from the awarns system with the one slay no matter what the discussion is for now as it’s clearly stated by dinkleberg himself.
Unsure if that’s being more commonly used now but it should be, it’s a good system.

I use it all the time because I am the best tmod

[Dinkleberg >:(]

Go read my post again I made a slight alteration

[Dildo Shwaggins]

Go read my post again I made a slight alteration

That seems like a good middle ground, I can be on board with that